An
astrobiologist working at NASA's Marshall Space Flight
Center outside Huntsville, Alabama has made an astounding
claim. In a recently published journal article, he claims to have
discovered a preserved alien life form residing inside a meteor that journeyed
through the vast black of space before impact our planet.

This extra-terrestrial may not be a bulbous-headed humanoid like in the movies,
but it may offer up an answer to one of mankind's greatest inquiries -- are we
alone in the universe?

The researcher, Dr. Richard B. Hoover [profile], had to go to extraordinary lengths
to make his discovery. He reasoned that if alien microbes were to hitch a
ride on a meteorite, they would likely have to do so in a special meteor.

Specifically, he zeroed in on the CI class of carbonaceous chrondite meteors.
These meteors are rich in water, amino acids, and other organic
compounds -- seemingly a virtual pantry for a microorganism.

Picking the most ideal type of CI meteorite -- CI1 optimized his chances, but
narrowed his pool of available specimens. In total only nine such meteorites
are known to exist on Earth.

After going to great lengths to obtain one of these meteorites, he destroyed a
piece of it, smashing it apart. Using scanning-electron microscopes and
field emissions electron-scanning microscopes he images the result dust and
fragments and made the extraordinary discovery he was hoping for -- what
appears to be a fossilized bacteria.

The identified specimen appears remarkably similar to the bacteria Titanospirillum
velox, a sulfur-loving archaebacteria, which was discovered in 1999 mud samples from Spain.

The meteorite was reportedly broken under carefully controlled sterile
conditions. Now the only unknown is whether the meteorite could have
somehow been contaminated. The meteors were sterilely harvested in the
frigid reaches of Antarctica immediately after their observed fall. The
fact that they were collected so quickly limits the possibility that indigenous
microbes contaminated them. The possibility of atmospheric contamination still remains,
though.

Dr. Hoover believes that this is not a case of contamination. He is
convinced that he has become the first human to record a scientifically
verifiable encounter with an alien being. He states in
a recent interview, "I interpret it as indicating that life is more
broadly distributed than restricted strictly to the planet Earth. This field of
study has just barely been touched -- because quite frankly, a great many
scientist would say that this is impossible."

The discovery has been met with a great deal of skepticism, but also
fascination. Dr. Hoover writes in a note to the editor's note
accompanying his study, "Given the controversial nature of his discovery,
we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists
from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical
analysis. No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a
thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific
community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important
research paper before it is published."

With the paper currently peer-reviewed and published [abstract] in the Journal of Cosmology,
Dr. Hoover's discovery will face its next critical test, with the collected
materials being examined by a second research team for verification and
validation.

Dr. Hoover is confident his discovery will be validated. He comments,
"A lot of times it takes a long time before scientists start changing
their mind as to what is valid and what is not. I’m sure there will be many
scientists that will be very skeptical and that’s OK."

"If someone can explain how it is possible to have a biological remain
that has no nitrogen, or nitrogen below the detect ability limits that I have,
in a time period as short as 150 years, then I would be very interested in
hearing that. I’ve talked with many scientists about this and no one has been
able to explain."

Comments

Threshold

Username

Password

remember me

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

The contamination is exceedingly unlikely - especially with Archaebacteria. You don't just bump into that stuff. Now if he found Staph or E. coli - I could see an argument for contamination, but finding Archae there is nearly impossible to happen on accident. It would be like testing the cleanliness of a hog farm in northern Missouri and finding a giant squid. It just doesn't make sense for it to be there on accident.

However, the bacteria they claim to have found is very primitive and would fall in line with what we might expect from an intersteller bacteria that kicked-off life on earth. For that reason my #1 suspicion is FRAUD by deliberately planting the evidence. If this type of fraud can be eliminated this finding is likely the real deal .

I don't know why 95% of poeple are trying to demolish his claim instead of being happy with the news. Primitive lifeform made of carbon is possible elsewhere in the universe, is that so hard to imagine?

The key doubt that i have are:1) Life on earth came from a meteorite such as this. The bacteria would have to survive the crash landing, which is highly improbable. And it wouldn't answer the question: where does this alien lifeform originated then? I think if you have a soup with all the necessary nutrients, similar lifeforms will just happen anywhere in the universe.2) We might, however, but the only or one of the few complex lifeform in the galaxy. Forming a premetive worm-like bacteria is easy, evolving into a complex and smart machine like the human needs billions of years of stability and luck, which is what earth has that may be hard to find elsewhere.

quote: I don't know why 95% of poeple are trying to demolish his claim instead of being happy with the news.

Simple: extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Such proof is not in the offing, and the circumstances around the publication of this research (specifically, via the highly dubious "Journal of Cosmology" instead of an actual, respected, peer-reviewed scientific journal) is indicative of a conjecture that is unlikely to pass muster with the rest of the scientific community.

Would I be ecstatic to hear of irrefutable proof of life on other planets? You betcha. However, going off half-cocked every time some pseudo-science pops up purporting to be that proof only discredits actual science and the scientific method.

On the contrary, the proof needs to be of the magnitude as the claim...hence, it is also true that mundane claims require mundane proof.

How extraordinary would it be to claim that 2+2=4? That would be a pretty mundane claim. The proof, say, finding several objects, pairing them together, and demonstrating that putting 2 pairs together predictably results in a collection of 4 items, would also be pretty mundane. But completely appropriate for the claim.

Claiming that you have proven life exists on other planets, or in space, is a very extraordinary claim. Proof of that claim would, by the very nature of it, also be extraordinary. Like...look, here's this alien that landed on my lawn in his UFO. Or in this case, unambiguous proof that the formations in this space rock are indeed biological in origin. Such proof would absolutely be extraordinary. Literally, far beyond what one ordinarily experiences...that's what that word means. Substantiated proof of extraterrestrial life would be wildly beyond what one ordinarily experiences.

And by the way, you apparently didn't recognize that quote to begin with...I didn't just make that up. That came from Carl Sagan...one of the most respected and celebrated scientists of all time.

That is a good explanation, but just to clarify all mathematical proofs end up resting on axioms. For example 2+2=4 is only true by definition, because we humans represent collections of four units with the number 4. One cannot objectively prove 4=4 as it is an abstraction that does not actually exist. One just has to accept the definition that 4 units is represented with a 4 therefore making it axiomatic.

Anyhow, I wouldnt say you need extraordinary proof, but your point is taken. Extraordinary claims do require proof. Extraordinary proof? no, but solid proof without potential contamination and/or other hypotheses as to how the proof came to be. It needs irrefutable proof. .

It needs the same level of proof as anything else that we consider to be proven... all facts are equal... or you are supporting an attempt to keep non mainstream thinking away from the public, regardless of whether it is true, by claiming it is an extraordinary claim and therefore its proof is insufficient? I think it would be wise to think on the consequences of such logic.

You're an idiot. I'm going to do this one more time for the off chance that you actually just aren't getting it...but it seems far more likely that you're just stupid.

A mundane claim requires mundane proof...because on either side of that equation, the information is already mundane. The claim that 2+2 equals 4 is a very mundane claim...it's barely interesting at all, and intuitively seems very obvious. The proof, demonstrating how collecting items together in pairs to add up to 4, is also barely interesting at all, and seems very obvious. Ergo, mundane.

The claim that alien life exists in space and/or on other planets is extraordinary...it's not obvious at all (indeed, there is no proof as of yet at all that supports that claim) and far outside what one normally experiences during the normal course of their life. Because of that, the claim is, by definition, and extraordinary claim.

That extraordinary claim cannot be backed up by mundane evidence. You can't say "This rock, which may or may not have been infiltrated by terrestrial microbes, has formations that rather look like they are the result of biological processes...therefore I have proven that life exists elsewhere." Your proof is not equal to the claim. If the proof is not equal to the claim, then the claim is unproven.

On the other hand, if you did truly have extraordinary evidence...say, a walking, talking, alien from outerspace who's biological makeup is based on silicon instead of carbon and doesn't even involve DNA but rather has a fundamental biology never before seen on this planet, well then you might just have proof that is equal to the claim. And that proof would be, obviously, extraordinary - after all, the number of times anyone on this planet has ever actually seen an alien life form is zero. If you came up with one, it would be the most extraordinary event in human history.

Now stop being a f#cktard and pretending that you don't need proof of the same caliber as the claim to substantiate a theory.

Verdict: Case thrown out, due to a confusion on the part of the prosecution between intelligence and holding a differing opinion. The prosecution is advised to go back and study what intelligence and opinion actually are, to learn some respect... in short is advised to go back to school. ;-)

In scientific research, the concept that extraordinary claims need to be backed by extraordinary proof is a well founded one.

If something is claimed that is not far off the well understood trail, it needs just a small amount of proof, as it may fit within that known context fairly easily. But when something is claimed that overturns what is thought to be true from other strong and voluminous work, then it must be backed by a great amount of strong data and reasoning. The need for this should be obvious.

If a friend told you that she drove to a resturant, even though she doesn't like to drive all that much, you might just say; really? If she said, "yes", you would believe it. But if she said she entered a cross country race, you would likely require more proof. If she said she bought a Ferrarri, and joined a racing team, you would find that harder to believe, and would ask for more proof. If she said that she would be driving in the Indy 500 shortly, you would want even more. The further along that line you go, the more proof is required.

It may be a well founded one but that doesn't mean it is a logically sound way of proceeding. All facts must be considered equal or none at all, and the same level of proof must be required for everything or you are part of a system that cherry picks its facts based upon how 'extraordinary' they are, rather than how true they are. If science is to be truth, and it portrays itself as being this very thing, then it is time to drop this code of censorship that is being blindly adhered to.

quote: then it is time to drop this code of censorship that is being blindly adhered to.

You're a catastrophic moron, probably buried so deep in religion that you no longer have two neurons to click together in a logical fashion. It would appear that it is too late for you...please just do the rest of mankind a favor and don't procreate. You and your kind seriously compromise the gene pool.

It's the *idea* being attacked. What doesn't kill it will make it stronger. I personally think finding a lifeform from space would be cool as sh17. I hope they attack the crap out of the idea and find it true.

If such "attacks" don't happen then you get left with shoddy science. Aristotle was legendary for this. "This stone weighs more than this apple therefore it MUST fall faster".

(note: I believe in God) Religious institutions uttterly fail to challenge such ideas and you're left with people thinking Jesus rode around on a dinosaur.

Artistotle wasn't exactly what you might call a warm person, either. His universal view is a cold, atheistic void and life is reduced to mere mechanics. His philosophies are what modern science is based upon, there is no doubt about that.

quote: We might, however, but the only or one of the few complex lifeform in the galaxy.

I don't agree. Life started on Earth immediately after conditions barely became supportive. These conditions were still extremely hostile. So somehow life will not be that incredibly rare, even though it appears it should be. My belief is that if conditions are similar to Earth's, then this primitive life will be subject to the same evolutionary processes as Earth, and inevitably evolve until it is very similar to human due to the principals of convergent evolution. So basically, almost every 4.5 billion year old Earth-like planet should have people on them :)

quote: Life started on Earth immediately after conditions barely became supportive.

But remained basic creatures until conditions settled down to something less chaotic. The assertion that there may not be much complex life in the galaxy is not that spectacular; most life forms here on Earth are still incredibly simple.

Yeah but if the universe really is merely 13 billions years old, and that the first 4-5 billions years the universe was just too small and too hot to breed life, and that it took us 4.5 billions years of STABILITY to get where we are today, if you compute the math, there is only a 3 billion years window of opportunity for a smart lifeform to have existed somewhere else. Compound that by the low probability of having a stable planet like earth, far from nocive radiations, protected from frequent meteoric impacts, with a stable rotation around it's star to have a stable temperature and a very slow burning star like our own.

And then, seeing how it took us only 10000 years to stop chasing mamooths to get into space travel (at leats to the moon that is), imagine where an alien race with a 1billion years head-start would be. They would be jedi and rule the galaxy by now!!! We sure would have heard of them. Evolution is very slow to start but once you get smart and social, the rate at which you discover technology gets expondential.

I think we are at the beginning of the universe and we are the first. Not that intelligent alien lifeforms are not possible, i just think they havn't got time yet and WE will breed new alien lifeforms in the future, when human space settlers will stay on a foreign planet for too long and evolve differently. Anyway, that's a theory.

"This is about the Internet. Everything on the Internet is encrypted. This is not a BlackBerry-only issue. If they can't deal with the Internet, they should shut it off." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis